Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #1/2022 06 January 2022

New This Week Case(s) of the Week LUKMAN HAKIM MOHAMED YOUSUF v. PP [2022] 1 CLJ 271 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2022 Volume 1 (Part 2) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

LUKMAN HAKIM MOHAMED YOUSUF v. PP [2022] 1 CLJ 271
HIGH COURT MALAYA, BUTTERWORTH
AMIRUDIN ABD RAHMAN JC
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: PB-42H-6-08-2021]
18 OCTOBER 2021

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Proper - Accused charged for being in possession of scheduled weapon - Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, s. 7(1) - Prosecution amended charge to remove unrelated statute after accused pleaded guilty - Whether amended charge read to accused - Whether other aspects of charge remained - Whether irregularity arose - Whether there was procedural non-compliance - Whether accused prejudiced - Whether there was miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective - Accused charged for being in possession of scheduled weapon - Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 ('Act'), s. 7(1) - Charge only used word 'parang' - Whether parang by itself scheduled weapon - Whether only considered scheduled weapon when it falls within category of parang described in paras. 8 or 9 of Second Schedule of Act - Whether charge provided description or characteristics of parang as to how it appeared fit to either para. 8 or 9 of Second Schedule of Act - Whether charge defective

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Facts of case - Accused charged for being in possession of scheduled weapon - Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, s. 7(1) - Whether written facts of case supported charge

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Possession of scheduled weapon - Accused charged for being in possession of parang - Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, s. 7(1) - Whether proceedings proper - Whether charge defective - Whether written facts of case supported charge - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Whether retrial ought to be ordered

---

1. Iskandar Regional Development v. SJIC Bina Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 1 LNS 175 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Iskandar Regional Development Authority v. SJIC Bina Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 1194

2. Government Of Malaysia v. Syarikat Ismail Ibrahim Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 40 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Syarikat Ismail Ibrahim Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Government Of Malaysia [Civil Suit: WA-24C(ARB)-32-11/2015]

Legal Network Series

[2021] 1 LNS 62	SANI MIASIN v. YUSOF@JOSREE YACOB & ORS 1. The failure to state the day of the week on which an election petition was served and the failure to exhibit proof of acknowledgement of receipt of the cause papers in the affidavit of service are fatal, which renders the election petition null and void. 2. An election petition alleging corrupt practice must be presented within 28 days after the date of the alleged act. Failure to file the petition within the prescribed timeline will result in the petition being struck out. 3. It is mandatory for the petitioner to plead sufficient facts regarding non-compliance with the election rules to make out a case for the petitioner. The petitioner must not only prove the alleged act of non-compliance but also that such non-compliance had affected the result of the election. ELECTION: Petition - Service - Service by process server - Petitioner instructed and authorised process server to serve petition on respondent - Whether service of petition in compliance with r. 15(1)(a) of Election Petition Rules 1954 ('EPR') - Whether petition could only be served personally by petitioner himself and petitioner's appointed advocates - Whether one or more modes of service under r. 15(1) of EPR could be utilised to serve election petition ELECTION: Petition - Service - Affidavit of service - Non-compliance - Affidavit failed to state day of week when election petition was served - Proof of acknowledgment receipt of cause papers not exhibited in affidavit of service - Petitioner filed supplementary affidavit of service to cure defect in earlier affidavit without leave of court - Supplementary affidavit of service filed after preliminary objection raised by respondent - Whether non-compliance was fatal to petition - Whether petition could be struck out - Whether respondent had been prejudiced by filing of supplementary affidavit of service by petitioner - Whether supplementary affidavit of service ought to be expunged ELECTION: Petition - Defective petition - Non-compliance - Petition presented out of time - Petition contains allegation of corrupt practice - Whether election petition was presented within time specified under s. 38(1)(a) of Election Petition Rules 1954 - Whether election petition defective - Whether petition ought to be struck out ELECTION: Petition - Allegation of corrupt practice - Failure to plead material facts and particulars - Delay in lodging police report concerning alleged corrupt practice - Whether absence of explanation for delay in filing police report regarding alleged corrupt practice had created doubts and suspicions on petitioner's allegation - Whether petitioner had proved that act of corrupt practice affected result of election For the petitioner - Rizwandean M Borhan, Mohd Azhier Farhan Arisin, Noor Azah Rahman, Al Hafidz Lokman & Farah Nazriah; M/s Azhier Arisin & Co For the 1st respondent - Serena Liew Chun Yean; M/s Serena Liew & Associates For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - SFC Azizan MD Arshad, SFC Andi Razalijaya A Dadi, SFC Nazri Ismail, SFC Mariam Hasanah Othman, SFC Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharudin & FC Istisyhad Ismail; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2021] 1 LNS 66	CIMB BANK BERHAD v. ALAM MARITIM (M) SDN BHD & ANOR 1. The failure of a party to register any protest or deny the opposing party's assertion or demand amounts to an implied admission by the former. 2. The construction of agreements is a question of law to be determined by the court, and it is not for the parties or their counsel to state the meaning of such documents. Summary judgment is a proper procedure when issues can be resolved through the construction of documents. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Banking - Recovery of debt - Defendant failed to respond to letter of demand, notice of recall and termination - Defendant failed to honour payment obligations under existing facility and after restructuring of debt - Whether plaintiff's claim has been admitted impliedly by defendant - Whether construction of agreements was a question of law to be determined by court or parties - Whether plaintiff has locus standi to commence action to recover debt following event of default - Whether there was manifest error to challenge correctness of certificate of indebtedness issued by plaintiff - Whether plaintiff's claim was suitable to be disposed of summarily For the plaintiff - Jeyathini Kannaperan & Pauline Koh Xiu Yin; M/s Shearn Delamore For the defendant - Gavin Jayapal & Santhyaan Venugopal; M/s Gavin Jayapal
[2021] 1 LNS 68	HO KIM LONG v. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA & ORS An application for a writ of habeas corpus is an incorrect mode of proceeding when an applicant is merely placed under police surveillance attached with an electronic monitoring device as there is no actual physical detention of the applicant to warrant the court to grant an order for habeas corpus. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Hebeas corpus - Application for habeas corpus - Applicant issued police surveillance order attached with electronic monitoring device ('EMD') - Whether attachment of EMD amounted to detention - Whether partial restriction of freedom of movement was imprisonment - Whether there was actual physical detention of applicant - Whether there was detention which warrants application for writ of habeas corpus CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for habeas corpus - Applicant no longer detained at detention centre - Applicant under police surveillance - Wrong respondent named in application - Affidavits in support of application were averred by applicant's wife and sister - Existence of previous application which was dismissed by court - Whether detention for purposes of investigation could be part of challenge - Whether a person not physically detained could apply for writ of habeas corpus - Whether application was flawed when Ministry of Home Affairs was named as respondent - Whether application for writ of habeas corpus required to be averred by applicant himself - Whether application was res judicata For the applicant - M/s G Ravi For the respondent - Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang, Kementerian Dalam Negeri
[2019] 1 LNS 1722	MOHD NAWAWI MAT HASSAN lwn. NIK MOHAMAD HAKIM MASA Suatu jumlah ganti rugi yang besar wajar diberikan bagi kecederaan parah pada bahagian otak yang telah mengakibatkan masalah ingatan dan kehilangan tempurung kepala selepas kemalangan jalan raya. GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Kecederaan parah pada otak - Plaintif berusia muda - Plaintif mengalami masalah ingatan selepas kemalangan - Plaintif tidak mempunyai tempurung kepala - Hakim bicara mengawadkan RM260,000 sebagai ganti rugi - Sama ada awad yang diberikan oleh hakim bicara adalah munasabah - Sama ada plaintif terdedah kepada risiko yang mewajarkan jumlah ganti rugi yang besar LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Keterangan senyap - Hanya plaintif hadir memberi keterangan ketika bicara - Motorsikal plaintif dilanggar ketika motokar defendan keluar dari arah kanan simpang - Kerosakan motokar tertumpu di bahagian kanan - Sama ada kerosakan sebelah kanan motokar menunjukkan titik pertembungan - Sama ada pemandu motokar cuai 100% dalam kemalangan Bagi pihak perayu - Norul Izwani Mohd Zalil; T/n Othman Hashim & Co Bagi pihak respondent - Noor Azizah Abdullah; T/n Azhar & Fazuny
[2019] 1 LNS 1740	PUAH PEI WEN v. GOH CHEE WEI 1. Peruntukan s. 28A(1) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 hanya terpakai kepada tuntutan bagi insurans yang berkaitan dengan kecederaan diri sahaja. Justeru, jumlah wang yang diterima melalui penyelesaian insurans tidak boleh diambil kira oleh Mahkamah untuk menentukan jumlah ganti rugi yang ingin diberikan bawah s. 28A(1) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956. 2. Tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan sebenar perlu dibuktikan secara jelas dengan keterangan yang mantap dan sebarang keterangan berdasarkan andaian penerimaan pendapatan tidak wajar diterima. GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Kos kaki palsu - Mahkamah memberikan kos bagi pembelian kaki palsu 'C-leg' - Plaintif merupakan orang tidak aktif - Sama ada plaintif wajar diberikan peluang untuk mendapatkan peralatan bantuan hidup terbaik - Sama ada kaki palsu 'C-leg' sesuai digunakan plaintif - Sama ada jumlah ganti rugi yang diberikan boleh dipertahankan GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Hakim bicara membenarkan tuntutan bagi jumlah yang sama dengan tuntutan insurans yang telah diperoleh plaintif melalui penyelesaian - Pemberian tuntutan berganda - Pengayaan yang tidak patut - Tuntutan dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah bersandarkan peruntukan s. 28A(1) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 ('Akta 1956') - Sama ada peruntukan s. 28A(1) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 hanya terpakai kepada tuntutan bagi insurans yang berkaitan dengan kecederaan diri sahaja - Sama ada jumlah wang yang diterima plaintif melalui penyelesaian insurans boleh diambil kira untuk menentukan jumlah ganti rugi yang ingin diberikan Mahkamah - Sama ada pembelian barangan menggunakan wang tuntutan insurans berkaitan dengan tuntutan bagi kecederaan diri GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kos penjagaan - Kos penjagaan separuh masa oleh orang gaji - Laporan pakar tidak menyatakan plaintif memerlukan bantuan melibatkan keperluan asas - Sama ada kos penjagaan separuh masa oleh orang gaji wajar diberikan - Sama ada kos penjagaan perlu diberikan semasa plaintif berada di peringkat pemilihan selepas kemalangan sahaja GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Kehilangan pendapatan - Tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan sebenar - Plaintif menghadapi penyakit kronik yang boleh meragut nyawa sebelum kemalangan - Plaintif adalah pengarah syarikat milik sendiri - Pendapatan plaintif tiada perbezaan ketara sebelum dan selepas kemalangan - Sama ada plaintif telah mengemukakan bukti kehilangan pendapatan sebenar dengan jelas - Sama ada plaintif telah mengemukakan bukti yang menunjukkan dia mempunyai pendapatan sebelum kemalangan - Sama ada pendapatan plaintif boleh diandaikan berdasarkan jumlah tanggungannya - Sama ada pemberian ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan berdasarkan andaian wajar dipertahankan Bagi pihak perayu - Sivakumaresan Supermaniam; T/n Naicker & Associates Bagi pihak responden - S Murali & T/n G Dorai

---

CLJ 2022 Volume 1 (Part 2)

There is no requirement in law that a person appearing for and on behalf of a company as its witness must be its current officers or expressly authorised by an officer of the company. When any witness appears to testify, that person is in court because the company had called the witness on its behalf; hence requiring authorisation letter or a resolution from the company from such witness would be superfluous.
Alliance Connext Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Wangsa Budimas Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 CLJ 173 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The court cannot disregard or discount express provisos in an agreement entered into by parties and deem it inapplicable. Doing so would be akin to, for all intent and purposes, rewriting a contract between the parties and has the effect of allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations.
Koperasi Perumahan Angkatan Tentera Bhd v. Perangsang Tenggara Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 CLJ 196 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Pursuant to s. 60(1) of the Land Code ('Sarawak') (Cap 81) ('SLC'), in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land resumed under s. 53 of the SLC, the court is to take into consideration the market value at the date of the publication of the notification under s. 47 of the SLC. If no such notification under s. 47 had been published, only then will the court take into consideration the market value at the date of the posting of the declaration under s. 48 of the SLC.
Superintendent Of Lands And Surveys Kuching Division v. Yong Ing Kai & Anor [2022] 1 CLJ 218 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The termination of a police officer under probation by the Police Force Commission under reg. 50(1) of the Public Officers (Appointment, Promotion and Termination of Service) Regulations 2012 based on certification of non-confirmation in the service by the Head of Department on the grounds of, inter alia, misconduct and poor performance by the probationary officer, despite extension of probationary period, is justified. While the Commission's discretion to confirm or not to confirm the probationary officer is not absolute, it has no duty to provide reasons for the termination under reg. 50(1).
Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Ors v. Melvindar Singh Gamum Singh [2022] 1 CLJ 232 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Government policies and management prerogatives premised significantly on medical and scientific opinion, as in this case, which concerns the National Immunisation Program for Teenagers aged 12 to 17 and the use of Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) as the vaccine of choice for this program, are something that the court is ill-suited to adjudicate upon. Such matters are not amenable to judicial review ie not justiciable and are best left to the Executive who have the benefit of the relevant expertise and opinions.
Clarence Ng Chii Wei & Ors v. Menteri Kesihatan & Ors [2022] 1 CLJ 247 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An amended charge has to be read and explained to an accused and for the plea to be taken from him. Without reading an amended charge, it would hinder a plea on the amended charge to be taken from the accused by the court. The court would not know the plea of the accused if an amended charge itself is never read and explained. An accused has every right to know what he is facing in court.
Lukman Hakim Mohamed Yousuf v. PP [2022] 1 CLJ 271 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A member of the public may express a factual or bona fide publication regarding a criminal trial but must never engage in any wild speculation, accusation or insinuation thereof, or embark on a public crusade to cast unwarranted aspersions and malicious conduct on the police, the prosecution and its witness, especially so when the trial was still on-going and when the full narrative of the prosecution's case was still in progress and unfolding. Venturing into such a strive is not only patently sub-judice and prejudicial to the fair hearing of the case, but may attract the issuance of a pre-emptive gag order by the court.
PP v. Arumugam Dorasamy [2022] 1 CLJ 297 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The courts, in order to preserve the integrity and to uphold justice, may exercise the revisionary powers, the objective of which is to prevent miscarriage of justice; in this case, the court exercised its revisionary powers to allow the Deputy Public Prosecutor to withdraw the notices of withdrawal of appeal, having found that there were merits in the appeals.
PP v. Mohamad Shafie Abdul Rani & Other Appeals [2022] 1 CLJ 318 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS EXPERT IN THE FUTURE: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE MALAYSIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1950 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Mazlina Mahali^[i] Ain Nursyahirah Mohd Fadzir^[ii] Nadiah Eilin Nor Azilan^[iii] Noor Maisyarah Aziz^[iv] Nur Aina Aliah Mohd Hamdan^[v] Nurhayati Abdul Latif^[vi] [2022] 1 LNS(A) i

[2022] 1 LNS(A) i



MALAYSIA

---

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS EXPERT IN THE FUTURE:
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE MALAYSIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1950

by
Mazlina Mahali^[i]
Ain Nursyahirah Mohd Fadzir^[ii]
Nadiah Eilin Nor Azilan^[iii]
Noor Maisyarah Aziz^[iv]
Nur Aina Aliah Mohd Hamdan^[v]
Nurhayati Abdul Latif^[vi]

ABSTRACT

The background of the law of evidence generally establishes that the opinions of third parties are irrelevant and inadmissible. The principle where oral evidence given by witnesses in the court must be directly perceived by them is adopted by the Malaysian legal system in accordance with common law. However, opinions of third parties, either from experts or non-experts, are exempted and admissible under sections 45 to 51 of the Evidence Act 1950. This evidence is treated as direct evidence under section 60(1)(d) of the same Act. The rule of admitting opinions of third parties is based on the necessity to assist the judge in matters beyond their expertise. Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States have taken a step forward in this age of technology by using Artificial Intelligence ('AI') to give expert testimony. The main concern of this article is how AI would fit as 'experts' under the Evidence Act 1950. This paper aims to bring forward the issues and challenges in adopting AI as experts in the future.

. . .

[i] Corresponding Author, Senior Law Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

[ii]  [iii]  [iv]  [v]  [vi] Final Year Law Students, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. WORK EXPERIENCE, INTERNSHIP, OR EMPLOYMENT?^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by John Wilson and Kieran Pender* [2022] 1 LNS(A) ii

[2022] 1 LNS(A) ii



AUSTRALIA

---

WORK EXPERIENCE, INTERNSHIP, OR EMPLOYMENT?⁺

by
John Wilson and Kieran Pender*

When is an intern an employee? John Wilson and Kieran Pender explore the potential legal pitfalls of the unpaid legal work experience placement.

"It can be particularly difficult to distinguish between internships, unpaid work experience, or clerkships (as they are more commonly known in the legal industry) and employment. However, it is important to do so to ensure the integrity of the standards and protections established by the [Fair Work Act]." — Deputy President Binet.^[1]

According to the old proverb, the shoemaker's son often goes barefoot. Lawyers do not have that luxury. Just as we advise our clients on the law, so too must we ensure that we practice what we preach in our workplaces. When it comes to the intricacies of employment law, that can pose some challenges.

This article is about one such challenge: the proper legal classification of junior individuals who are present in a legal workplace on a short-term, unpaid basis. While these arrangements are often labelled 'work experience' or 'internship', such terms have no legal meaning. In most circumstances, that will have no consequence — ordinarily, there will be no legal relationship between the workplace and the individual. But sometimes an intern may, as a matter of law, be an employee. That can have many negative consequences — with an unpaid internship potentially giving rise to legal liability.

. . .

+ Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 261 Spring 2021.

* John Wilson is the managing legal director at Bradley Allen Love Lawyers. Kieran Pender is an honorary lecturer at the ANU College of Law and a consultant at BAL. The views expressed here are their own.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert